http://www.etheric.com/LaViolette/Predict2.html
I try not to be dogmatic about empirical propositions.
My problem is that LaViolette is connected to some fringe junk :\
In Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion, physicist Paul LaViolette reveals the secret history of antigravity experimentation–from Nikola Tesla and T. Townsend Brown to the B-2 Advanced Technology Bomber. He discloses the existence of advanced gravity-control technologies, under secret military development for decades, that could revolutionize air travel and energy production. Included among the secret projects he reveals is the research of Project Skyvault to develop an aerospace propulsion system using intense beams of microwave energy similar to that used by the strange crafts seen flying over Area 51.
Using subquantum kinetics–the science behind antigravity technology–LaViolette reviews numerous field-propulsion devices and technologies that have thrust-to-power ratios thousands of times greater than that of a jet engine and whose effects are not explained by conventional physics and relativity theory. He then presents controversial evidence about the NASA cover-up in adopting these advanced technologies. He also details ongoing Russian research to duplicate John Searl’s self-propelled levitating disc and shows how the results of the Podkletnov gravity beam experiment could be harnessed to produce an interstellar spacecraft.
Let him produce duplicateable results. Let him demonstrate a working device. Absent that he’s just selling hype. Literally. He’s selling a book about antigravity fringe science.
Have you read Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion? Labeling it “fringe” and dismissing it isnt what I consider good science. There are some duplicatable electrogravitic and overunity devices out there. Verifying them does have the unfortunate consequence of making one “fringe”.
Nah. The supposedly electrogravitic effects are just devices that use ion-produced wind to produce thrust–being passed off as something else. And no overunity device (meaning perpetual motion machine) has -ever- been shown to exist, that would be news of the century.
it might interest you to know that Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion addresses the topic of ion wind.
Yes everyone knows that anything important makes the news. Life without government, that would be the news of the century. Someone who managed to publicize an overunity machine without being shut down by the energy oligopsony would be the news of the century.
its funny, because this belief that entropy is a one-way street is something of an axiom of faith among those who consider themselves educated. Youre not even allowed to talk about violating it without being dismissed outright. Overunity (meaning machines that produce more than they consume) is an observable fact of nature but to talk about somehow harnessing it is blasphemy.
The photon moves at speed c in a vacuum.
Are you really talking about violation of the conservation laws and the second law of thermodynamics?
No I am actually not, I am talking about recovering energy along similar lines to how energy is lost through entropy. This cold be thermal energy in the local environment, zero point energy, or some of many other sources of energy.
And if he says anything other than that they create ion wind he’s blowing smoke.
Wouldn’t matter if it made the news or not, because if such a device did exist, there would be a precipitous and suspicious oversupply of energy. Meaning the inventor could very quickly make billions of dollar by starting an energy company and building ad infinitum. He’d be king of the universe in no time, a power source with no inputs? Make Bill Gates’s fortune look like a sneeze in comparison.
The fact that this hasn’t been done is large inductive evidence that it’s not possible, besides all the other laws of physics it would violate. Extraordinary claim .:. proof.
How did Ford get cars off the ground without the horse industry shutting him down.
Talk about it all you want, but demonstrate something one of these days.
c may be different in each medium, but that doesn’t change anything.
Its great that youre willing to dismiss a book you havent read because it contradicts your worldview.
which wouldnt come to the attention of anyone, particularly not the u.s. Department of energy.
assuming the energy industry was unregulated. Nay, the very act of starting a company is regulated. Its very easy to talk about starting a company and building and infinite number of devices and making billions but the reality is a bit different.
Thats not very good evidence, as for thousands of years it could have been applied to commercial airflight.
we there was plenty of inductive evidence against him for several centuries but look now, they didnt even take a bailout.
You mean like Eugene Podkletnov?
Cool story: Quirino Majorana who did the original gravity shielding experiments was the uncle of the genius theoretical physicist Ettiore Marjorana (one of Enrico Fermi’s “Via Panismera” boys) and corresponded with him.
Marjorana disappeared mysteriosuly in March 1938 and his fate remains unexplained. Did he know too much? Did he already know neutrinos were fermions that were their own antiparticles? The Italian government seems tohave strongly suspected he surfaced in Buenos Aires in 1955! 
Does this have anything to do with his work on neutrino masses as well as investigating his uncle’s hyppothesis?.. According to Wikipedia:
Incidentally failure to predict neutrino mass is one of the well known flaws of the Standard Model.
Um, conservation of energy is not an experimental fact. It’s a necessary law of nature, because every system eventually reduces to cause = effect. That is, whole effect is never greater than whole cause.
Even Leibniz’s famous example, a match in the gunpower-room is not the whole cause, but the potential energy of the gunpower must be considered, and then, the explosion is no more energetic than the energy already in the room.
That is precisely how Leibniz’s dynamics presented conservation of energy, and Mayer “confirmed” it when he said the same thing (including E = M C ^ 2) and found the mechanical equivalent of heat, which nobody earlier knew what it was.
It just means that you cannot get more than you started with, no matter what system you have.
In other words, if mathematics is true about the real workd, then nothing produce more energy than it started with when a closed system. One cannot do more work than work in the system.
Gravity is not energy, although gravitional waves do tranmit energy. It is curvature of space-time. Inertia is most vaguely this:
Take a tube. Then bend it. Take a straight wire (a geodesic with mass or energy) and push it into the tube. It will encounter resistence and force is required to bend it. The curvature tensor changes the energy relations of the system in it, and gravitational waves move energy around from one system into another.
I was merely correcting your original statement. It’s too general. That’s why I said a photon moves at speed c in a vacuum.
Blackholes can bend/ suck in light. Therefore, light has mass or the black hole is affect light in other ways.
Special relativity shows that the photon is massless.
Black holes, by their mass, curve space-time, changing the curvature tensor. As does any massive object, although how that happens is still studied.
Light is not sucked in. Black holes do not themselves apply any force on light waves. Newtonian law of graviational attractive force between two points as function of mass and distance. Light has no mass in fact, and black holes cannot interact with it according to Newtonian gravity. Because light converges to black holes does not imply that light has mass. Rather Newtonian gravity is not strictly true, but merely an approximation.
In reality, because of different curvature, which is a set of coefficients, as function of location in space, by which the components of all vectors as they would appear in flat space-time are multiplied, respectively, geodesics converge, resulting in light cones not being able to converge anywhere in the future except the black hole once light waves approach near enough to it to a place in space-time where curvature is sufficiently great.
I see that this is a reply to me. I hope that I didnt somehow mislead you into thinking that I reject conservation of energy, because I dont. Otherwise I dont see a reason to reply.
It’s probably directed towards Wibee. If photons have mass, then it would require infinte energy to acclerate them to speed c.
I c.